Gay Patriot Header Image

What Explains Readiness to Call Criticism of Obama Racist?

Among the many great fears I have of an Obama victory is that once he takes office, his supporters, including those in the media, will try to describe certain criticism of his actions as racist.  Just in the past few weeks, we’ve heard someone accuse those who call Obama’s policies socialist of being racist while others contend that raising his association with William Ayers similarly reeks of racism.

It seems those who level such accusations have their own prejudices against Republicans, believing we’re all racist and our criticisms are merely code words concealing our racial animus.  As we have detailed on this blog, there are many, many reasons to vote against Barack Obama.  None of them involve his race.

What does it say about the readiness of so many on the left to invoke racism when there is no evidence of racial animus?  It is just that they harbor a prejudice against Republicans or is there something else at play?

For Obama to be Uniter, He Must Challenge Left-wing Hate

It wasn’t just Biden’s whining about his rough treatment by Barbara West that struck me in the video I linked earlier today. It was also that he lashed out at John McCain for running a negative campaign, as if the only nastiness this cycle came from the Republican side.

His comments remind me of some of the e-mails I get from Obama supporters. They bemoan the mean-spiritedness, even the racist tone of the Republican campaign. But, when they provide examples, they either reference a strange comment from some insignificant party hack or include a long anti-Republican screed from a left-wing blog. The tone of the post, its very language is as vicious as they accuse us of being.

They seem oblivious to the vitriol in their own e-mails.  And on their own side.

Yes, there has been some hateful rhetoric on the right, but it pales in comparison to that we have seen on the left. Just take a gander at the high-traffic conservative web-sites and compare them to the high-traffic sites on the left.

If Biden and his running mate want to unite this nation should they win next week, they’ll have to take stock of the venom coming from a good number of their supporters. If, as my recent interlocutor claimed, Obama can bring us together, he’ll have to stand up to the most hateful of his supporters and tell them to show more respect for their ideological adversaries.

To be sure, as John Hinderaker puts it, “Barack Obama can’t be blamed for all of his followers’ vile actions, but, like it or not, he trails in his wake a howling mob of barbarians.”  While Obama can’t be blamed for their actions or rhetoric, he can at least express his displeasure at such conduct.  And if he truly seeks to lead this nation, he will.

Hating Sarah Palin in West Hollywood

Drive around my neighborhood and you see abundant signs of rancor directed against the GOP, bumper stickers deriding Bush, signs mocking McCain.  This morning, I learned that a West Hollywood resident is displaying a mannequin of “Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of [his] home.”  Imagine the outrage if a Republican in Orange County had displayed a mannequin of Barack Obama hanging by a noose.

i am delighted to note that some gay left bloggers, instead of countenancing this distasteful display are condemning it.  Andy at towleroad faults it for being neither funny nor original. He’s got that right.  Joe joins him in slamming this mean-spirited decoration, saying we should leave such b.s. “to the wingnuts.

Should we take that to mean he faults all such nastiness on his side, including Andrew Sullivan’s regular rants against the Alaska Governor?  This is just a visual expression of the rage we see on left-wing sites and at Obama rallies directed against the Alaska Governor. At one such rally, “the mention of Palin’s name drew shouts of ‘stone her.’

I grant that there’s been some pretty ugly stuff come from some fringe activists on the right. And mainstream conservative bloggers and pundits have been quick to condemn it. It’s nice to see some gay leftists just as quick to denounce the hate on their own side.

Let’s hope this is part of a trend.

Is Joe Biden Fit to be Vice President?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:14 pm - October 27, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Biden Watch

It seems his thirty-six years in Washington have inured Joe Biden to the kid-glove treatment Democrats get from the national press corps.

When a reporter asks Republicans tough questions, they see it as par for the course and (usually) don’t complain.  But, when the news media challenge Democrats, they start whining and call their questioners “combative” as the Obama team labeled WFTV’s Barbara West for pressing the Delaware Democrat on his running mate’s rhetoric of redistribution.

The campaign retaliated by refusing to grant interviews to the station for the duration of the campaign.

And now Biden is whining about the treatment he got:

If a man can’t take the heat from a local reporter, how can he stand up to our nation’s adversaries?

Then, he goes on to plea for unity while savaging his political adversaries! Um, Joe, how can you bring people together when you keep accusing the other side of dividing us while ignoring the divisive politics on your own side?  And when you define as “mean” tough questions from an inquisitive reporter?

“White People Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Vote”

How charming.  In this day and age I cannot believe this type of hate speech is now considered mainstream. (h/t – Campaign Spot at NRO)

As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don’t think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.

I give you Exhibit A: The last eight years.

In 2000, Bush-Cheney stole the election, got us attacked, and then got us into two no-exit wars. Four years later, white people reelected them. Is not the repetition of the same behavior over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome the very definition of insanity? (It is, I looked it up.)

Exhibit B is any given Sarah Palin rally.

Exhibit C would be Ed Rendell and John Murtha, who in separate moments of on-the-record candor they would come to regret, pointing out that there are plenty of people in Pennsylvania who just cannot bring themselves to pull the lever for a black man – no matter what they tell pollsters.

So, understand that I am saying all this for the good of the country and, in fact, for the good of those hard-working white people that Hillary used to pander to.

I know those people, I come from them. They are not some shameful abstract demographic to be brushed under the rug of euphemism by Wolf Blitzer and his ilk.

I have broken kielbasa with those people. I went to school with their children. I have gone to Sunday Mass with a deer-hunter hangover with those people. They are bitter with good reason, and they are armed because they are scared. They mean well, but they are easily spooked.

I fear for what is to become of them after the campaigns leave town for the last time, and Scranton and Allentown and Carlisle go back to being the long dark chicken dance of the national soul they were before the media showed up.

This is as racist and stereotypical of any hate speech I have ever seen.

Could you imagine the riots that would breakout at the New York Times and Hollyweird if a columnist in, say Atlanta, wrote “Black People Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Vote.” ???

Again, this columnist is one of the footsoldiers of the Obama Thugocracy.  He is willing to subjugate his own rights and freedom on behalf of The One.  Last I checked that was called socialism at the least, fascism at the worst.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A Smart Student’s “Nutshell” Case for Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:22 pm - October 27, 2008.
Filed under: Academia,Conservative Ideas,Gay Marriage

Since we can’t count on the heads of gay organizations, including those dedicated to promoting gay marriage, to consider the merits of the institution, we have to go elsewhere.  It seems the conservative press of late has done a better job of discussing gay marriage than the gay press, even on college campuses.

This morning, a reader forwarded me a piece from the Stanford Review, that university’s conservative paper where a gay conservative student, Yishai Kabaker, make a good “nutshell” case for gay marriage, writing, “the desire for gay marriage is not merely a fight for the legal and social benefits, but also a desire for the serious commitments that marriage entails.”

I would daresay that the average gay couple getting married in the Golden State understand what marriage entails and are ready to make those commitments when they take their vows.  At least those married gay couples I know do “get” the obligations the institution entails.

Kabaker also recognizes the significance of the gay marriage debate in our culture, pointing out quite accurately that it “is a relatively recent phenomenon,” reflecting “a shift in the LGBT community away from sexual revolution toward the American mainstream.”

His essay is short, so is easy to read, and merits your attention.  It is interesting that a college student can better summarize the case for gay marriage than can those who do so professionally.  Just as this debate is a sign of a shift in gay culture, that a conservative student paper would publish this piece is a sign of changes on the right, a greater welcoming of gay individuals and a consideration of ideas of concern to us.

Dear Elaine Donnelly…

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 11:21 am - October 27, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Elections,Advocate Watch,Gays In Military

I had wanted to take some time off from commenting on The Campaign That Will Never End, but your latest screed criticizing retired General Colin Powell demands a response. While I share your disappointment in General Powell’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President, your remarks in expressing such are truly beyond the pale:

If General Powell is not concerned about the consequences of repealing the law, he cannot be described as a conservative or even the credible leader of the military that he used to be. If Powell does not favor all of these consequences, why has he announced his intent to vote for Senator Obama, who has promised to push for repeal of the 1993 law? Either way, General Powell is letting down the men and women of our military.


Why this campaign has made me more Republican

While the American people may have soured on the Republican Party because of the “last eight years,” the last eight weeks have helped reaffirm my commitment to the GOP.  Perhaps, had the president adhered to his party’s principles and held the line on federal spending, people would better appreciate the philosophical differences between the parties.

I wonder how much attention the American people are paying to the Democrats’ talk of increasing federal spending should Barack Obama win next week.  Or are they just focused on voting against the party in power?

Do people know that Obama’a party favors a spending package (they call it stimulus) of $150 or $300 billion depending on which report you read?  And this with a budget way out of balance.  Do they know that the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee favors “a 25 percent cut in military spending.”  And this at a time when we face threats abroad and are fighting two wars (though one does seem to be in the mopping up stages).

Are they aware that when Obama proposes reducing taxes on 95% of households, as many as 44 percent don’t pay any federal income tax.  That’s not a reduction in taxes, but a redistribution of wealth.  And Obama has long favored such redistribution, spreading the wealth around in the vernacular of the 2008 campaign.

Just take a listen to what he said in 2001:

As Michelle Malkin, who alerted to the video put it, summarized, he’s not asking whether to redistribute wealth, but how.

Listening to Barack Obama, I become more of a Republican because my party, in principle at least, favors a less intrusive federal government and more freedom. We don’t believe in economic policies which redistribute the wealth, but which increase the size of the pie so all benefit.

With the Democratic Party breaking from the Clintonian ideal of “reinventing government” (by which the Administration would focus on making existing federal programs work better) and replacing it with a commitment to expanding government, the GOP stands as a bulwark against the encroaching power of the state.

In rhetoric at least over the past few weeks, we’ve heard a renewed Republican commitment to free enterprise and opportunity. We know the state cannot solve our problems.

It’s too bad that for the last eight years, George W. Bush did little to contain the size of the federal government and did not build on the good work Ronald Reagan had begun. If people do vote against Bush’s party next month, they’ll be voting to accelerate his spendthrift ways.  And to delay even further the vision the Gipper had and the fulfillment of our party’s ideals.